Single-use vs Reusable Endoscopes in Urology: No Difference in Patient Outcomes

What is it about?

The study compared the clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes with reusable endoscopes in urology procedures. 21 studies with 3943 participants were included, with no significant differences in postoperative infection rates or overall complication rates between the two groups. For patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy, there were no differences in operating time, length of hospital stay, or stone-free rate between the single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope groups. The study highlights the cost efficiency and environmental impact of single-use endoscopes, and suggests that urologists can choose between the two options without affecting patient outcomes.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it compares the clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes with those of reusable endoscopes in urology, providing valuable information for healthcare professionals to make informed decisions about endoscope usage. The study is the largest of its kind within urology and demonstrates that there are no significant differences in postoperative infection rates, overall complication rates, length of hospital stay, or stone-free rate between single-use and reusable endoscopes. This highlights the cost efficiency and environmental impact of single-use endoscopes, as well as their potential role in reducing the risk of transmission of pathogens between patients. Key Takeaways: 1. The study is the largest to compare single-use and reusable endoscopes within urology. 2. There are no significant differences in postoperative infection rates, overall complication rates, length of hospital stay, or stone-free rate between single-use and reusable endoscopes. 3. Single-use endoscopes offer cost efficiency and environmental benefits, as well as a reduced risk of transmission of pathogens between patients.